That might work. One question: we want the same bits that were published
as 0.9.0-rc1 to become the final bits where you would do:
npm install -g apache-royale
We aren't supposed to rebuild anything. For Maven the same bits from
staging get copied to Maven central, for Ant/IDE the same bits are moved
(not copied) from dist/dev to dist/release. So is it true that the RM can
publish the final bits by taking the same bits that were once published
via
npm publish --tag 0.9.0-rc1
as the final release? What does the RM to do make that happen? Just:
npm publish
without any tag?
Seems reasonable for the RM to have Node.js and npm installed.
Thanks,
-Alex
On 11/9/17, 6:28 PM, "omup...@gmail.com on behalf of OmPrakash Muppirala"
<omup...@gmail.com on behalf of bigosma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>For staging builds, we could do :
>
>Publish:
>npm publish --tag 0.9.0-rc1
>Install:
>npm install -g apache-royale@0.9.0-rc1
>
>For nightly builds
>
>Publish:
>npm publish --tag nightly
>Install:
>npm install -g apache-royale@nightly
>
>Thoughts?
>
>BTW, if we want to integrate this as part of our release process, the
>Release Manager will need to have node.js and npm installed as well.
>
>Thanks,
>Om
>
>On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 3:08 PM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com.invalid>
>wrote:
>
>> What would be great is, when we push artifacts to Maven staging repos
>>and
>> dist/dev, we also push something to wherever we need to push it so npm
>> works. Then we say in the vote emails:
>>
>> Maven: Use these staging 'coordinates' in your pom.xml
>> Ant/IDE users: Get artifacts from dist.a.o/dev/royale
>> NPM users: Run npm <whatever>
>>
>> But these may not be the final bits so we want to make sure folks know
>> that and that we can push final bits later. Then when the vote finally
>> passes, the RM pushes the Maven artifacts to Maven Central, the Ant/IDE
>> packages go to dist.a..o/release/royale and we do whatever is needed for
>> npm.
>>
>> Similarly, for nightly builds, we tell Maven users to use -SNAPSHOT
>> versions, we tell Ant/IDE users to get it from apacheflexbuild. What
>>can
>> we tell npm users?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> -Alex
>>
>> On 11/9/17, 2:37 PM, "omup...@gmail.com on behalf of OmPrakash
>>Muppirala"
>> <omup...@gmail.com on behalf of bigosma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 2:15 PM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com.invalid>
>> >wrote:
>> >
>> >> Can you remind me what the issues are with npm and nightly builds?
>> >>IOW, I
>> >> would think we would want to automate the generation of the HPM
>>release
>> >>so
>> >> it can go out with the regular Apache release artifacts and be
>>tested as
>> >> an RC by release voters.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >I don't think there is any issue. Those who want to test out the
>>nightly
>> >via npm, need to a few special steps before they run npm install. Josh
>> >added that functionality a while ago.
>> >We are talking about the official release so we can push the package
>>out
>> >to
>> >the npm registry.
>> >
>> >We could also publish alpha/beta releases to npm as well.
>> >
>> >
>> >> We already need to synchronize the generation and deployment of Maven
>> >> artifacts as well as the Ant/IDE artifacts. Can we add NPM as well?
>> >>
>> >
>> >Yes, we should be able to incorporate an npm publish command into our
>> >release scripts. Do you know at what point in the whole release
>>process
>> >we
>> >will be able to update npm?
>> >
>> >If we dont change the installation steps, we would need the following
>> >pieces in the package.json file:
>> >
>> >"org_apache_flex": {
>> >"flexjs_path_binary": "flex/flexjs/0.8.0/binaries/",
>> >"flexjs_file_name": "apache-flex-flexjs-0.8.0-bin.zip",
>> >"falcon_path_binary": "flex/falcon/0.8.0/binaries/",
>> >"falcon_file_name": "apache-flex-falconjx-0.8.0-bin.zip",
>> >"flash_player_global_url": "
>> >https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
>> http%3A%2F%2Fdownload.m
>> >acromedia.com%2Fget%2Fflashplayer%2Fupdaters%2F25%
>> 2F&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cb85
>> >038114e2f4ee32aba08d527c2918b%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178de
>> cee1%7C0%7C0%7
>> >C636458638974117812&sdata=Pf%2Fx4OLzd65wh8OEeXC8ALh3LE%
>> 2BBvUQGD6Ksts2pl14%
>> >3D&reserved=0",
>> >"flash_player_global_file_name": "playerglobal25_0.swc",
>> >"adobe_air_url":
>> >"https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
>> http%3A%2F%2Fairdownlo
>> >ad.adobe.com%2Fair%2Fwin%2Fdownload%2F25.0%2F&data=02%
>> 7C01%7C%7Cb85038114e
>> >2f4ee32aba08d527c2918b%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178de
>> cee1%7C0%7C0%7C636458
>> >638974117812&sdata=dVNDap4qsl6i7zZ1uL%2FIiqKexCBpPPx86eqgDmslTPY%3D&
>> reserv
>> >ed=0",
>> >"adobe_air_file_name": "AdobeAIRSDK.zip",
>> >"player_version": "25.0",
>> >"swf_version": "36",
>> >"swf_object_url":
>> >"https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
>> http%3A%2F%2Fgithub.co
>> >m%2Fswfobject%2Fswfobject%2Farchive%2F&data=02%7C01%7C%
>> 7Cb85038114e2f4ee32
>> >aba08d527c2918b%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178de
>> cee1%7C0%7C0%7C6364586389741
>> >17812&sdata=gWVzkp0ByA8WM8SUI4pbDOKgs5omcrVHBnIJsy2pfQU%3D&reserved=0",
>> >"swf_object_file_name": "2.2.zip",
>> >"flatui_url":
>> >"https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
>> https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.c
>> >om%2Fdesignmodo%2FFlat-UI%2Farchive%2F&data=02%7C01%7C%
>> 7Cb85038114e2f4ee32
>> >aba08d527c2918b%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178de
>> cee1%7C0%7C0%7C6364586389741
>> >17812&sdata=nD8nezQSa9GnubwK8frZlJepgEY7zfdCuMRqPbC3jqM%3D&reserved=0",
>> >"flatui_file_name": "2.2.2.zip"
>> >}
>> >
>> >Then, we up the version number and do a npm publish. The release
>>manager
>> >would need to have the credentials for npmjs.org, but we could share
>>that
>> >with priv...@royale.apache.org
>> >
>> >Thanks,
>> >Om
>> >
>> >
>> >>
>> >> -Alex
>> >>
>> >> On 11/9/17, 1:28 PM, "Harbs" <harbs.li...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >OK. You’re probably right.
>> >> >
>> >> >> On Nov 9, 2017, at 9:34 PM, OmPrakash Muppirala
>> >><bigosma...@gmail.com>
>> >> >>wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 11:27 AM, Harbs <harbs.li...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >>> Did you reserve the name yet?
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> No I did not. If we are going to be using apache-royale as the
>> >>package
>> >> >> name, we should be fine.
>> >> >> Unless you are worried someone else might claim it?
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>> On Nov 9, 2017, at 9:25 PM, OmPrakash Muppirala
>> >><bigosma...@gmail.com
>> >> >
>> >> >>> wrote:
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 10:08 AM, Carlos Rovira
>> >> >>>><carlosrov...@apache.org>
>> >> >>>> wrote:
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>> Hi Om,
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>> I'm working on the website content and want to know about NPM
>>to
>> >> >>>>>update
>> >> >>>>> pages with real info.
>> >> >>>>> could you share your plans about releasing Apache Royale in
>>NPM?
>> >> >>>>> I suppose you can't still make this due to some final renaming?
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>> Let me know in order to remove this info if you think we'll
>>need
>> >>more
>> >> >>> time
>> >> >>>>> to get Royale on NPM
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>> Thanks!
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> I was hoping to release the npm version right after we do the
>>first
>> >> >>> release
>> >> >>>> of royale. Does that work?
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> Thanks,
>> >> >>>> Om
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>> 2017-10-30 19:57 GMT+01:00 Carlos Rovira
>> >> >>>>><carlos.rov...@codeoscopic.com
>> >> >>>> :
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>>> I think apache-royals would be better, since avoids confusing
>> >> >>>>>>people.
>> >> >>> If
>> >> >>>>> I
>> >> >>>>>> came to this project for the first time, and try to search in
>> >>npm,
>> >> >>>>>>and
>> >> >>>>> find
>> >> >>>>>> "royale", although this was the right and only package, I'll
>>be
>> >>ask
>> >> >>>>>>me
>> >> >>> if
>> >> >>>>>> there's the right one.
>> >> >>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>> With apache-royale, there's no confusion problems ;)
>> >> >>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>> 2017-10-30 19:50 GMT+01:00 OmPrakash Muppirala
>> >> >>>>>><bigosma...@gmail.com>:
>> >> >>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>> We always have option of using apache-royale as package name.
>> >> >>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>> On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 11:32 AM, Harbs
>><harbs.li...@gmail.com>
>> >> >>> wrote:
>> >> >>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>> It’s a shame that “royale” seems to already be taken on npm.
>> >> >>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>> I would vote for two packages:
>> >> >>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>> 1. To install *everything* (i.e. swf, js, node, etc. and
>>future
>> >> >>>>> targets
>> >> >>>>>>>> when/if we add them):
>> >> >>>>>>>> npm install apache-royale -g
>> >> >>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>> 2. To install js-only:
>> >> >>>>>>>> npm install apache-royale-js -g
>> >> >>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>> If we see a demand for further packages (i.e. compiler
>>only),
>> >>we
>> >> >>>>>>>>can
>> >> >>>>> add
>> >> >>>>>>>> them as additional packages later.
>> >> >>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>> Harbs
>> >> >>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>> On Oct 30, 2017, at 8:23 PM, OmPrakash Muppirala <
>> >> >>>>>>> bigosma...@gmail.com>
>> >> >>>>>>>> wrote:
>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>> So, "npm install" downloads a tarball from npmjs.org. The
>> >> >>>>>>>>>package
>> >> >>>>>>>> usually
>> >> >>>>>>>>> contains the code we want others to use. It also contains
>>a
>> >> >>>>>>>> "package.json"
>> >> >>>>>>>>> file which specify all its dependencies. These
>>dependencies
>> >>(and
>> >> >>>>>>> their
>> >> >>>>>>>>> sub-dependencies) are all downloaded from npmjs.org as part
>> of
>> >> >>>>>>>>>"npm
>> >> >>>>>>>>> install".
>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>> There are options to run custom scripts before and after
>>the
>> >>npm
>> >> >>>>>>> install.
>> >> >>>>>>>>> In the case of FlexJS, we run a script afterwards that
>>simply
>> >> >>>>>>> downloads
>> >> >>>>>>>> our
>> >> >>>>>>>>> non-npmjs.org dependencies (royale sdk, fonts, flash
>>player,
>> >> air,
>> >> >>>>>>> etc.)
>> >> >>>>>>>> and
>> >> >>>>>>>>> puts them in the correct places.
>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>> So, our options are:
>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>> 1. Publish two different packages on npmjs.org: jsonly and
>> >> >>>>>>>>>js+swf.
>> >> >>>>>>> We
>> >> >>>>>>>>> need to figure out the names of these packages, since they
>>are
>> >> >>>>> unique
>> >> >>>>>>>>> identifiers on npmjs's registry.
>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>> Then the command the users would run would look like:
>> >> >>>>>>>>> npm install royale-jsonly -g
>> >> >>>>>>>>> npm install royale-js-and-swf -g
>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>> 2. Publish only the jsonly package.
>> >> >>>>>>>>> Then the command the users would run would look like:
>> >> >>>>>>>>> npm install royale-jsonly -g
>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>> 3. Possibly, we can figure out a way to optionally
>>download
>> >>swf
>> >> >>>>>>> support.
>> >> >>>>>>>>> This way, by default the jsonly is downoaded and unzipped.
>> >>Then
>> >> >>>>>>>>>we
>> >> >>>>>>> could
>> >> >>>>>>>>> (possibly) look at the args or have the user run another
>> >>command
>> >> >>>>> that
>> >> >>>>>>>>> downloads the swf support.
>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>> Then the command the users would run would (possibly) look
>> >>like:
>> >> >>>>>>>>> npm install royale -- -include-swf-support -g
>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>> (or)
>> >> >>>>>>>>> npm install royale-jsonly -g
>> >> >>>>>>>>> and then
>> >> >>>>>>>>> ./update-royale-include-swf-support
>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>> In all three cases, we can definitely run a script that
>>alters
>> >> >>>>>>>>>xml
>> >> >>>>>>>> configs,
>> >> >>>>>>>>> etc. to suit our needs.
>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>> Hope that helps.
>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>> >> >>>>>>>>> Om
>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>> On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 9:20 AM, Alex Harui
>> >> >>>>> <aha...@adobe.com.invalid
>> >> >>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>> Om,
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>> Can you explain to us what our options are? Essentially,
>>the
>> >> >>>>> JS-only
>> >> >>>>>>>>>> package will be a subset of a package that can output both
>> >>SWF
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>and
>> >> >>>>> JS
>> >> >>>>>>>> and
>> >> >>>>>>>>>> will probably have slightly different default settings in,
>> >>for
>> >> >>>>>>> example,
>> >> >>>>>>>> a
>> >> >>>>>>>>>> frameworks/royale-config.xml file.
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>> It is looking like we can create a zip package for JS-only
>> >>that
>> >> >>>>> will
>> >> >>>>>>>> work
>> >> >>>>>>>>>> in Moonshine and VSCode, but to fully make it work in
>>Flash
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>Builder
>> >> >>>>>>> (and
>> >> >>>>>>>>>> maybe some other IDEs) you will need to run a script of
>>some
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>sort
>> >> >>>>>>> that
>> >> >>>>>>>>>> fixes up some FB launch configurations that convert Flex
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>projects
>> >> >>>>> to
>> >> >>>>>>>>>> Royale projects.
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>> The current plan for a "FlexJS" package that has SWF
>>support
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>(for
>> >> >>>>>>> users
>> >> >>>>>>>>>> that want use SWF for testing or as a migration step) will
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>require
>> >> >>>>>>> that
>> >> >>>>>>>>>> users unzip a package and run an Ant script to bring down
>> >>Adobe
>> >> >>>>>>>>>> dependencies. I'm thinking we won't use the Flex
>>installer.
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>> I'm still working through why one of our users isn't
>>getting
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>code
>> >> >>>>>>>>>> completion working in FB and the answer there may affect
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>packaging
>> >> >>>>> as
>> >> >>>>>>>> well.
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>> I don't know NPM well enough to have an opinion on, if we
>> >> >>>>> distribute
>> >> >>>>>>> two
>> >> >>>>>>>>>> packages (flexjs-with-swf-support and js-only), whether
>>NPM
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>allows
>> >> >>>>>>> us to
>> >> >>>>>>>>>> have two different packages or whether it is better to
>> >>structure
>> >> >>>>> NPM
>> >> >>>>>>>>>> releases as js-only package and a swf-support-add-on
>>package.
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>> I also don't know if the NPM install should run a script
>>that
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>fixes
>> >> >>>>>>> up
>> >> >>>>>>>>>> those launch configs. Maybe it is better to continue to
>> >>leave
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>them
>> >> >>>>>>> as
>> >> >>>>>>>> "FB
>> >> >>>>>>>>>> users have to run this additional Ant script" or something
>> >>like
>> >> >>>>> that.
>> >> >>>>>>>> I'm
>> >> >>>>>>>>>> not sure how important FB still is to our
>>ease-of-migration
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>story.
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>> Maybe showing us what folks would have to type on the
>>command
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>line
>> >> >>>>>>> might
>> >> >>>>>>>>>> help us form opinions.
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>> Thoughts?
>> >> >>>>>>>>>> -Alex
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>> On 10/30/17, 4:36 AM, "carlos.rov...@gmail.com on behalf
>>of
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>Carlos
>> >> >>>>>>>> Rovira"
>> >> >>>>>>>>>> <carlos.rov...@gmail.com on behalf of
>> >> >>>>> carlos.rov...@codeoscopic.com>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>> Hi Om,
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>> I think that would be great!
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>> If we end having multiple products as Alex suggested, I
>> >>think
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>we
>> >> >>>>>>> should
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>> have as well multiple NPM installs.
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>> So for me is ok to sync products we deliver with NPM
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>installations
>> >> >>>>>>>> flavors
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>> Thanks
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>> 2017-10-30 10:58 GMT+01:00 Yishay Weiss
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>><yishayj...@hotmail.com>:
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> You’re likely to do most of the maintenance work, so
>>it’s
>> >>up
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>to
>> >> >>>>>>> you…
>> >> >>>>>>>> As
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> far as users go there are some users writing client
>>code in
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>AIR
>> >> >>>>> and
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> server
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> code in node (in fact I’m involved in such a project
>>right
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>now).
>> >> >>>>>>> So I
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> wouldn’t make sweeping assumptions.
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> ________________________________
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> From: omup...@gmail.com <omup...@gmail.com> on behalf of
>> >> >>>>> OmPrakash
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> Muppirala <bigosma...@gmail.com>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Monday, October 30, 2017 10:21:37 AM
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> To: dev@royale.apache.org
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: Publishing royale to npm
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 1:19 AM, Harbs
>> >><harbs.li...@gmail.com
>> >> >
>> >> >>>>>>> wrote:
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Why not publish both versions?
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> It looks like the js only is going to be just a zip
>>file.
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>That
>> >> >>>>>>> makes
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> for
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> easy maintenance.
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> The swf version has a bunch of dependencies to be
>> >>downloaded.
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> Not a big deal, just thinking out loud if we really
>>need to
>> >> >>>>> publish
>> >> >>>>>>>> two
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> different packages that might lead to confusion.
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> I'm open to both, though.
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> Om
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Oct 30, 2017, at 10:15 AM, OmPrakash Muppirala <
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> bigosma...@gmail.com>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I was wondering if we should publish the
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>apache.royale-jsonly
>> >> >>>>>>> verson
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> via
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> npm instead of the full version with swf support.
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> After all, users coming in vial npm would most likely
>>not
>> >> >>>>> expect
>> >> >>>>>>> swf
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> support.
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Any thoughts on this proposal?
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Om
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>> --
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
>> >> >>>>>>>>>> http%3A%2F%2Fwww.codeo
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>> scopic.com&data=02%7C01%7C%7C5f3b122f189e4e0f119b08d51f8a
>> >> >>>>>>>>>> 81b0%7Cfa7b1b5a7b
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>> 34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636449602097009881&
>> >> >>>>>>>>>> sdata=wZgQd0X2xX6ed8y0
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>> t4O87r66gMlVy%2F8aHqtpwnq8O6w%3D&reserved=0>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>> Carlos Rovira
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>> Director General
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>> M: +34 607 22 60 05 <607%2022%2060%2005>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
>> >> >>>>>>>>>> http%3A%2F%2Fwww.codeos
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>> copic.com&data=02%7C01%7C%7C5f3b122f189e4e0f119b08d51f8a
>> >> >>>>>>>>>> 81b0%7Cfa7b1b5a7b3
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>> 4438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636449602097009881&
>> >> >>>>>>>>>> sdata=wZgQd0X2xX6ed8y0t
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>> 4O87r66gMlVy%2F8aHqtpwnq8O6w%3D&reserved=0
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>> Conocenos Avant2 en 1 minuto!
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
>> >> >>>>>>>>>> https%3A%2F%2Favant2.e
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>
>>s%2F%23video&data=02%7C01%7C%7C5f3b122f189e4e0f119b08d51f8a
>> >> >>>>>>>>>> 81b0%7Cfa7b1b5a
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>> 7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636449602097009881&
>> >> >>>>>>>>>> sdata=JK22xVqobAGGnZ
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>> b8laWESXHS3NA5nLdscBYTEHml7Pk%3D&reserved=0>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>> Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario y
>> >>puede
>> >> >>>>>>>> contener
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>> información privilegiada o confidencial. Si ha recibido
>>este
>> >> >>>>> mensaje
>> >> >>>>>>>> por
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>> error, le rogamos que nos lo comunique inmediatamente por
>> >>esta
>> >> >>>>> misma
>> >> >>>>>>>> vía y
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>> proceda a su destrucción.
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>> De la vigente Ley Orgánica de Protección de Datos
>> >>(15/1999), le
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>> comunicamos
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>> que sus datos forman parte de un fichero cuyo
>>responsable es
>> >> >>>>>>>> CODEOSCOPIC
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>> S.A. La finalidad de dicho tratamiento es facilitar la
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>prestación
>> >> >>>>>>> del
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>> servicio o información solicitados, teniendo usted
>>derecho
>> >>de
>> >> >>>>>>> acceso,
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>> rectificación, cancelación y oposición de sus datos
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>dirigiéndose a
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>> nuestras
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>> oficinas c/ Paseo de la Habana 9-11, 28036, Madrid con la
>> >> >>>>>>> documentación
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>> necesaria.
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>> --
>> >> >>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>
>> >>
>>
>>>>>>>>>><https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2
>>>>>>>>>>Fna01.safelinks.protection.outlook&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cb6a2094e11dd
>>>>>>>>>>4e4c496708d527e2d4eb%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7
>>>>>>>>>>C636458777567763335&sdata=VO2yh0RARZiWr4jYbPz8nfsyzyCG2Oa2KQ%2Blj
>>>>>>>>>>2z%2FLIM%3D&reserved=0.
>> com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fww
>> >>>>>>>>w
>> >> .
>> >> >>>>>>codeoscopic.com&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cbbcc4f094aec46c8cac208d527b8
>> >> d535%7C
>> >> >>>>>>fa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%
>> >> 7C636458597162582230&sdata=%
>> >> >>>>>>2BGs4UwGYO8XA6Ca3DU15tlSm3DZL3j4Jz9bXSVtkRu4%3D&reserved=0>
>> >> >>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>> Carlos Rovira
>> >> >>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>> Director General
>> >> >>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>> M: +34 607 22 60 05 <607%2022%2060%2005>
>> >> >>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
>> >> http%3A%2F%2Fwww.c
>> >> >>>>>>odeoscopic.com&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cbbcc4f094aec46c8cac208d527b8
>> >> d535%7Cf
>> >> >>>>>>a7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%
>> >> 7C636458597162582230&sdata=%2
>> >> >>>>>>BGs4UwGYO8XA6Ca3DU15tlSm3DZL3j4Jz9bXSVtkRu4%3D&reserved=0
>> >> >>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>> Conocenos Avant2 en 1 minuto!
>> >> >>>>>><https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
>> >> https%3A%2F%2Fava
>> >>
>>>>>>>>nt2.es%2F%23video&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cbbcc4f094aec46c8cac208d527b8
>> >> d535%
>> >> >>>>>>7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%
>> >> 7C636458597162582230&sdata
>> >> >>>>>>=Il0uAApioVX8s%2FGpLF6I7n3Z9RVE6lr%2F2DRXoDPhY7M%3D&reserved=0>
>> >> >>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>> Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario y
>>puede
>> >> >>> contener
>> >> >>>>>> información privilegiada o confidencial. Si ha recibido este
>> >>mensaje
>> >> >>> por
>> >> >>>>>> error, le rogamos que nos lo comunique inmediatamente por esta
>> >>misma
>> >> >>> vía
>> >> >>>>> y
>> >> >>>>>> proceda a su destrucción.
>> >> >>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>> De la vigente Ley Orgánica de Protección de Datos (15/1999),
>>le
>> >> >>>>>> comunicamos que sus datos forman parte de un fichero cuyo
>> >> >>>>>>responsable
>> >> >>> es
>> >> >>>>>> CODEOSCOPIC S.A. La finalidad de dicho tratamiento es
>>facilitar
>> >>la
>> >> >>>>>> prestación del servicio o información solicitados, teniendo
>>usted
>> >> >>> derecho
>> >> >>>>>> de acceso, rectificación, cancelación y oposición de sus datos
>> >> >>>>> dirigiéndose
>> >> >>>>>> a nuestras oficinas c/ Paseo de la Habana 9-11, 28036, Madrid
>> >>con la
>> >> >>>>>> documentación necesaria.
>> >> >>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>> --
>> >> >>>>> Carlos Rovira
>> >> >>>>>
>> >>
>> >>>>>>>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
>> http%3A%2F%2Fabou
>> >>>>>>>t
>> >> .
>> >> >>>>>me%2Fcarlosrovira&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cbbcc4f094aec46c8cac208d527b8
>> >> d535%7
>> >> >>>>>Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%
>> >> 7C636458597162582230&sdata=9
>> >> >>>>>%2FYyqi%2BYg77E%2FcoGt9naXIx24oJV3uK2fwbRB7Ef1Ec%3D&reserved=0
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>>
>>
